The proposed remedy can be worse than the disease because to subsidize green technologies will cause the economy to paralyze, thereby hurting the chances to invest in new, and more efficient clean technologies. What policy makers are telling us is that "we must clean the planet first and then we must grow," when the most sensible option is to continue to grow, develop new technologies and then start cleaning the planet efficiently. Unless you buy into global warming alarmist, we can do a better job by moving gradually into clean technologies. Read more

Fossil fuels could become more expensive someday, and we will need something cheaper with which to replace them, but we don't know when that will happen. The consequences of our remedy for that contradict the reasons for seeking a remedy in the first place, when our remedy has the effect of making energy more expensive right now. Which is worse, more expensive someday wherein "someday" could be beyond our great grandchildrens' lifetimes for all we know, or more expensive right now? The consequences of implementing a proposed replacement for fossil fuels should be consistent with all of our reasons for doing so, which means that it must be cheaper. There could be other reasons, too, but at the very least a replacement must be cheaper. The obvious mistake here was that the replacements for fossil fuels have not been cheaper. Read more

It means you're spending too much because the subsidy wouldn't be necessary if you were paying for conventionally sourced energy. The subsidy all represents extra costs someone needs to pay to get the same amount of energy from the subsidized source. Read more

Question is not just about subsidies but the most economically efficient mechanisms to reflect the true costs of carbon emissions. A revenue neutral carbon tax with transfers to the lowest income households to offset increased costs is one of the better options, as unpalatable as it may be politically at least in the United States. Read more

A quick comment:According to IMF (2013), fossil fuel subsidies summed up to $480bn in 2011, compared to IAE's estimates of subsidies for renewables in 2011, $88bn.I guess when talking about subsidies, the global picture should be taken into account.Read more

Dear Timothee. Yes, absolutely, we should get rid of both fossil and renewable subsidies. But remember, that almost all of the fossil fuel subsidies are in third world countries, and have nothing to do with global warming. They're essentially ways to placate the electorate (like damaging subsidies to grain and bread). See perhaps my article on this at WSJ: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2FSB10001424127887324432404579051123500813210&ei=do0wU4q9JYTYyQHHiIDQBA&usg=AFQjCNEGf9O-B9AS8T4PJhb3ApuKMAqy2g&sig2=a2Bya7Rwld2y5IXMpXtSpg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.aWc Read more

I've always enjoyed Lomborg's insight into our current global Climate Change/Environmental discussion politicians, academics, and students are having the world all over. However, I still believe that his viewpoint is misguided. As any sane person today knows, combating climate change and environmental degradation requires substantial challenges resulting in substantial sacrifices. Yes, I share the belief that the poor have the right to enjoy the same benefits the rich have for so long, but not at the expense of prolonging an adequate and thorough solution to environmental degradation. An individual with the stature that Mr. Lomborg has should aim their efforts to finding a quick solution, and not prolonging the issue. I also want to mention that both sides (developed and developing) must cut back, and not just one. This, I believe, should be the focus of Mr. Lomborg, and not combating current efforts. If the international community does not do something soon, then it is very possible that many more of the poor might continue facing a growing energy inequality. The sooner something is done, the sooner we can all benefit from our planet's sustainable resources. Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.